LAW.coLAW.co

UNITED STATES v. DAVIS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-02-10No. No. 20-2125

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the sentence and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Griffin Davis appealed his above-Guidelines sentence for a firearms offense after entering a guilty plea. Davis's counsel sought permission to withdraw and filed a brief arguing the sentence was unreasonable. The appellate court reviewed the district court's upward departure from the sentencing guidelines and found no abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial judge properly applied the statutory sentencing factors and did not commit clear error in weighing them.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether the district court abused discretion in departing upward from sentencing guidelines
  • Whether the imposed sentence was substantively unreasonable
  • Adequacy of counsel's appellate arguments

Procedural posture

Griffin Davis appealed his sentence imposed after a guilty plea to a firearms offense, with appointed counsel filing an Anders brief seeking to withdraw.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

[Unpublished]

Griffin Davis appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court

1

after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsels motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1

.   The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.